STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Alamance County
Nos. 04 CRS 23569-70
DANIEL ELVEL McGEE
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amy
C. Kunstling, for the State.
James N. Freeman, Jr., for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Defendant Daniel Elvel McGee was charged with misdemeanor
assault on a government official and habitual misdemeanor assault.
By a separate bill of indictment defendant was charged with
attaining habitual felon status. On 22 February 2005, a jury found
defendant guilty of misdemeanor assault on a government official.
Defendant subsequently stipulated to the five prior misdemeanor
convictions that formed the basis of the habitual misdemeanor
assault charge and admitted his habitual felon status. The trial
court enhanced defendant's conviction to habitual misdemeanor
assault and sentenced defendant as an habitual felon to 90 to 117
months imprisonment. Defendant appeals, contending that hishabitual felon indictment and habitual misdemeanor assault
indictment were fatally defective. For the reasons discussed
below, we find no error.
Defendant argues that his habitual felon indictment was
fatally defective because it alleged his 4 February 2000 habitual
misdemeanor assault conviction as one of the three predicate
felonies supporting his habitual felon status. Defendant also
argues that his habitual misdemeanor assault indictment was fatally
defective because it alleged a prior assault conviction that
occurred more than 15 years before the instant offense. To support
his contentions, defendant cites to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33.2,
which was amended in 2004 to read as follows:
A person commits the offense of habitual
misdemeanor assault if that person violates
any of the provisions of G.S. 14-33 and causes
physical injury, or G.S. 14-34, and has two or
more prior convictions for either misdemeanor
or felony assault, with the earlier of the two
prior convictions occurring no more than 15
years prior to the date of the current
violation. A conviction under this section
shall not be used as a prior conviction for
any other habitual offense statute. A person
convicted of violating this section is guilty
of a Class H felony.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33.2 (2004).
Defendant's reliance on the amended statute is misplaced. The
North Carolina Session Laws passed by the 2004 session of the
General Assembly state that the amended section 14-33.2 is
effective December 1, 2004, and applies to offenses committed on
or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the
effective date of this part are not abated or affected by thispart, and the statutory provisions that would be applicable but for
this part remain applicable to those provisions. 2004 N.C. Sess.
Laws 2004-186, sec. 10.1 and 10.2. Thus, the amended statute
applies only to offenses committed on or after 1 December 2004.
Defendant committed the instant offenses on 27 September 2004,
which is two months before the 1 December 2004 effective date of
the 2004 amendments.
The statute in effect when defendant committed the crimes
provides:
A person commits the offense of habitual
misdemeanor assault if that person violates
any of the provisions of G.S. 14-33(c) or G.S.
14-34, and has been convicted of five or more
prior misdemeanor convictions, two of which
were assaults. A person convicted of
violating this section is guilty of a Class H
felony.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14_33.2 (2003).
As defendant concedes in his brief, it was permissible to use
a habitual misdemeanor assault conviction as a predicate felony for
a defendant's habitual felon status prior to the 2004 amendment of
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33.2. Defendant also concedes that the 2004
amendment added the language limiting the age of the prior assault
convictions that could be used to support a habitual misdemeanor
assault charge. Thus, it was permissible to use a prior conviction
more than fifteen years prior to the current violation before the
2004 amendment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33.2. Because N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-33.2, as amended in 2004, does not apply to defendant's
case, defendant's contentions are without merit.
No error.
Judges BRYANT and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***